Daniel Quinlan said:
> A few of their rules were quite good though and I got more than one idea
> during the process. I'm not quite ready to attempt it again, though.
Yep, it was clearly a herculean task, I can understand being averse
to doing it again soon ;) Great results, though!
--j.
-
SpamTalk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Might worthwhile to peruse his regex and see if there is anything
> there to incorporate in SA rules.
I did recently test and slowly integrate a huge number of Postfix
regular expressions that I found in various places. I tested over 2000
expressions (in va
> > Did you read the original article? He claims to be _more_ accurate than
> > SA while still doing header-content-only tests (not DNSbl). Of course, I
> > don't know whether that includes blocking IP ranges with a private list.
I have seen a lot of claims that filter brand X is accurate at a s
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Smart, Dan wrote:
> Ralf is a *major* contributor to Postfix group.
Just so we're clear on the attributions here ... the procmail poster whose
articles I referenced was Dallman Ross; Ralf was responding to statements
made by Dallman.
---
on Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:38 AM -0800, Bart Schaefer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Just food for thought:
>
> http://www.rosat.mpe-garching.mpg.de/mailing-lists/procmail/2002-10/msg00465.html
Some agreement, some disagreement.
SA w/o tuning does present a number of false positives. Whitelist ru
filtering.
<>
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:21 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Perspectives on (not) using SA
|
|
|
|Bart Schaefer said:
|
|> Did you read the original article? He
filtering.
<>
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:21 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Perspectives on (not) using SA
|
|
|
|Bart Schaefer said:
|
|> Did you read the original article? He claims to
Bart Schaefer said:
> Did you read the original article? He claims to be _more_ accurate than
> SA while still doing header-content-only tests (not DNSbl). Of course, I
> don't know whether that includes blocking IP ranges with a private list.
> Personally I use SA because it's "close enough"
> "JM" == Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JM> Ralf Hildebrandt said:
>> He's wrong on this:
>> Fourth, and I've saved the best for last: SA is a HOG. I refuse to
>> fire up perl for each message, and I refuse to full-body-grep each
>> message that comes in.
>> (spamc/spamd and also
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Justin Mason wrote:
> > He's wrong on this:
> > Fourth, and I've saved the best for last: SA is a HOG. I refuse to
> > fire up perl for each message, and I refuse to full-body-grep each
> > message that comes in.
>
> But it's a fundamental mismatch in approaches anyway -- a
Ralf Hildebrandt said:
> He's wrong on this:
> Fourth, and I've saved the best for last: SA is a HOG. I refuse to
> fire up perl for each message, and I refuse to full-body-grep each
> message that comes in.
> (spamc/spamd and also it doesn't do a full body grep)
true!
But it's a fundamental m
BURP! That was delicious.
Frankly, anything (and I don't care how crude, inefficient, CPU hog,
bloated, etc.) that pre-tags the spam in my mail stream works for me.
Our inbound mail stream is currently tracking at about 30% spam. So out of
about 5,000 inbound emails so far this week, 1,420 were
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:38:21AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Just food for thought:
>
> http://www.rosat.mpe-garching.mpg.de/mailing-lists/procmail/2002-10/msg00465.html
He's wrong on this:
Fourth, and I've saved the best for last: SA is a HOG. I refuse to
fire up perl for each message, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
